Reasonable Nuts

Sometimes nuts. Always reasonable. We are REASONABLE NUTS.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Is Nutrition Scientific Science Not Really Science?



A NYT article (of all places!) about how an elite group of people claiming to have a monopoly on truth, and claiming to have a moral imperative to make us live according to that truth, end up being victims and perpetrators of an especially pernicious strand groupthink strand of memetic virus.

The older I get, the more "science" just appears to be tales spun by wizen old men who live in enclosed communities immune from economic and ethical pressures of modern life (i.e. universities and government research labs). After years of hard-work, mindbreaking study and self-enforced hyper-maturity they are now where they've wanted to be since childhood: In the nursery playpen, where judgments of good and evil, cause and effect, and scarcity and plenty are completely under their control.

These "so-called" scientist perform ceremonies known as "experiments", a cascade of physical reactions they set in motion in an aim to determine their preconceived notions. They are rarely disappointed.

The exegesis of their doctrine are varied but all with a similar theme, like different colored threads on the same pattern of weave: "nature comes from natural and not supernatural processes", "pollution cause by CO2 cause by automobiles cause by people driving around doing stuff", "following you instincts about what to eat and drink will kill you . . . sooner than wanted."

All the outcomes of all their experiments are all aimed to prove one hypothesis, whether latently or overtly, "people who think and do differently from us think and do worse than us". Thus is exhibited the (natural) philosophers will to power--scientists interpret the universe as being one where scientists are the ideal of the universe.

Occasionally a rogue, contrarian, heretic scientist tries to upset their doctrine. Sometimes he's heroic, a nihilist who is wiling to throw himself and all his peers under the bus if, at one point in his life he can find something to believe, or at least something not to disbelieve. Other times he too operates under his own prodigious will to power; when he can't get himself crowned Pope, Antipope will do.

Either way, the beneficial effect is the same, and has been the same throughout all the generations: doctrine is exposed as being just that, and the old monks rearrange their doctrine as something that better imitates actual empirical truth before settling into the old, comfortable routine of chants and incantations to prove their holiness.

The older I get, the smarter Nietzsche gets.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Battlescars: Fark Thread # 3171600

The reason why I typically don't blog much these days is that I'm too busy polluting the comment threads of other people's blogs. But I think I'll start linking to these on here.

Here's a little flamewar I had with some Farkers in a small red-lighted thread on ID being taught in higher education, which ultimately lead to questions about the existence of a creator and the nature of human consciousness. It would've been more fun if these guys had put a little more effort into it and thought their answers through. Good practice, though.

To reach enlightenment, the toughest arguments have to be the ones you have with yourself.

Labels: , , , , ,

The Wikipedia Watchword of the Week--11/1/2007

The Wikipedia Watchword of the Week is

Rule of 72

For instance, if you were to invest $100 with compounding interest at a rate of 9% per annum, the "rule of 72" gives 72/9 = 8 years required for the investment to be worth $200; an exact calculation gives 8.0432 years.

Labels: , ,